| Family Court in Ashdod | |
| Estate Case 61180-07-20 S. v. the Custodian General of the Southern District et al. Estate Case 61436-07-20 S. v. the Custodian General of the Southern District et al. External Case: 57057_5 |
|
| Before | The Honorable Judge Carmit Haddad | |
| The plaintiffs: | 1. A2 . Both by Attorney Yoav Bental |
|
|
Against
|
||
| Defendants/Opponents: | 1. L.
2. Fri 3. See 4. B All by Adv. Gil Mor
|
|
In the matter of the estate of the deceased R. (hereinafter: “the deceased”)
| Judgment |
This judgment concerns the plaintiffs' application for an order to execute the deceased's will dated May 29, 2005 in the estate file 61180-07-20 and the objection of the objectors/defendants to the issuance of the order (estate file 61436-07-20).
Background:
- The deceased, born on 08.05.1927, passed away on 21.02.2020.
- The plaintiffs, Mr. A. (hereinafter:The Plaintiff") and Ms. D. (hereinafter: "The Plaintiff") are two of the deceased's children. Objector 4 Ms. B (hereinafter:The Opponent") is also the daughter of the deceased. The deceased has another son, R., who died before the deceased's death (hereinafter:The deceased son"). Opponents 1-3, Mr. L. (hereinafter:The Opponent") Mr. V. and Mr. R. are all the children of the deceased son and are therefore her heirs according to the law of the deceased.
- On May 29, 2005, the deceased made a notarized will (hereinafter:The Will") before the notary, Adv. Y. (hereinafter:The notary public") in which she bequeathed her entire estate to the plaintiffs in equal parts, while excluding the objector and the deceased son.
The parties' arguments:
The Opponents' Arguments:
- According to a decision dated 01.03.2022, the opponents submitted an amended statement of objection in which they raised the following claims:
The deceased did not speak Hebrew and therefore could not make a will in the Hebrew language - the opponents claim that the deceased's mother tongue was Polish and that she also spoke Yiddish, and also refer to the fact that in the will it was stated that the deceased had "read" the will to the notary and that the notary was convinced that the deceased could hear the Hebrew language, despite the fact that the deceased could not read and write in Hebrew.
According to the opponents, the deceased did indeed speak Hebrew in the plain sense of the word, but her understanding was so poor that whenever she was required to read documents in Hebrew, she was assisted by third parties in order to understand their contents.